Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Judicial review applicants failed to meet low threshold of “arguability”
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of High Court refusal to grant leave for judicial review for an order prohibiting the prosecution of a charge of breaking a condition of release by failing to be of good behaviour by attempting to commit the offence of trespassing while on temporary release from Mountjoy Prison, on the grounds that: 1) the applicant sufficiently appreciated and understood the offence with which he was charged, which was not vague or imprecise; 2) the application for judicial review was not premature; 3) the applicant, and not his solicitor, ought to have sworn the grounding affidavit; and 4) the decision to refuse leave in this case was justified on the basis that the appellant failed to make out an arguable case in law that he was entitled to the relief which he sought.
Criminal law – judicial review – temporary release from Mountjoy Prison pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 – Rule 3(a) of the Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 2004 – appeal of High Court refusal to grant leave for judicial review for an order of prohibition of the prosecution of the appellant on trespassing on residential property – to s. 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 – declaration that the charge of being unlawfully at large by way of breaching a condition of temporary release to be of good behaviour is not an offence known in law – O. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – whether the application is premature – failure of the appellant to swear the grounding affidavit – the vagueness issue – s. 11 of the Public Order Act 1994 – applicant fully appreciated and understood the offence with which he was charged – decision to refuse the leave in this case was justified on the basis that the appellant failed to make out an arguable case in law that he was entitled to the relief which he sought – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
